Recommended Posts

What in the world does a windmill have to do with Coronavirus? Nancy Pelosi should be ashamed of herself for putting stupid pork like this in the bill.

It was about conditions for a bailout, which I fully support. And I far as I can tell, albeit googling for about 5 minutes, I can't find anything about windmills that was proposed; the main thing considered as pork was the condition of airlines cutting emissions, which I think is a sensible thing if you're going to chuck money at something. Although I do agree with your insinuation that it shouldn't be a priority, I think conditions such as no stock-buy-backs or bonuses is a good idea.

What do you think about the Republicans' $500 billion "slush fund" though? See, two edged sword, not just Pelosi.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

It's like watching a train wreck for me. You don't want to but it's hard to look away. The problem is people actually think they're getting legitimate information.

1 hour ago, urbanlover568 said:

“President Trump is a ratings hit. Since reviving the daily White House briefing Mr. Trump and his coronavirus updates have attracted an average audience of 8.5 million on cable news, roughly the viewership of the season finale of ‘The Bachelor.’ Numbers are continuing to rise..."

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

BREAKING! Trump appears to suggest a conspiracy, widespread theft or bad acting to explain why some New York hospitals are using so many masks. "Where are the masks going? Are they going out the back door?" Asks reporters to investigate.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

25 states now have 1,000 cases. SC just became the 25th, joining NC and 23 others. But all 50 states now have over 100 cases.

Blue states may have more cases, but red states have faster growth. And so there's no point in gloating on either side. This should be a time to rediscover American exceptionalism and defeat this together.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

In Kentucky the legislature just passed a voter ID bill which requires voters to get an ID from the DMV. They did not acknowledge that DMV's in Kentucky are closed for an undetermined period of time.

In a world where elected officials are intentionally preventing American's from voting, how can we still be considered to be a democracy? If you are comfortable with this level of autocracy then, as an American, you need to do some soul searching.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

In Kentucky the legislature just passed a voter ID bill which requires voters to get an ID from the DMV. They did not acknowledge that DMV's in Kentucky are closed. How can America still be considered to be a democracy?

#angel loveIAmAngryAboutThisBullcrap <this was very "autocorrected"

The GOP is also fighting against mail in voting. Whatever it takes to stay in charge.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

^ True, but as with gerrymandering it doesn't seem possible to change unless the party in charge has a super majority and ethics. A rare combination.

Alternatively, a state like CO which allows citizens to petition to get constitutional changes on the ballot. I've seen that work well there but it can get carried away!

On 4/1/2020 at 2:32 AM, southslider said:

25 states now have 1,000 cases. SC just became the 25th, joining NC and 23 others. But all 50 states now have over 100 cases.

Blue states may have more cases, but red states have faster growth. And so there's no point in gloating on either side. This should be a time to rediscover American exceptionalism and defeat this together.

Since its generic versions are dirt cheap (my wife takes it for Rheumatoid), it's old as Methuselah, and the side effects are well known, what could anyone possibly have against physicians prescribing this drug? Are we now saying that not only us plebs, but also highly skilled physicians have to wait for the OK from the government experts? For the use of an old treatment?

It's this kind of behavior that makes people think that Fauci, et al are shills for drug companies.

So you might want to add to your last line: "provided that they are susceptible to the drug's worst side-effects."

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Since its generic versions are dirt cheap (my wife takes it for Rheumatoid), it's old as Methuselah, and the side effects are well known, what could anyone possibly have against physicians prescribing this drug? Are we now saying that not only us plebs, but also highly skilled physicians have to wait for the OK from the government experts? For the use of an old treatment?

It's this kind of behavior that makes people think that Fauci, et al are shills for drug companies.

So you might want to add to your last line: "provided that they are susceptible to the drug's worst side-effects."

Because supply is currently limited and there are people (like your wife) who must have the drug for other reasons.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Republican Sen. David Perdue reportedly purchased $65,000 in stock for company that produces personal protective equipment on the day of a Senate members-only meeting on coronavirus in late January.

just a quick reminder about Richard Burr who sold the bulk of his stock portfolio after a January (non-public) briefing on the virus, yet didn't bother to warn any of his constituents. He is currently busy hoping that all of us forget about his callus profiteering.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

If what you're saying is true, one wonders if the supply will remain limited in favor of more expensive, patentable, drugs.

And I would cheer a generic manufacturer who stepped up production of it in order to meet increased demand.

Even though it's not been shown scientifically effective (so far) you think producers will ramp production? Randomized and peer reviewed trials take time. Yes, doctors prescribe things off label all the time. If someone is almost surely going to die, the drug is plentiful, and unlikely to cause worse harm (pain, faster death) then why not? There is already a method for that known as compassionate use. It's been opened up quite a bit over the last few decades.

Inventing and then producing drugs is a complicated process and most drugs fail to be effective or are too toxic for human use.

Sigh..... As for the patent drug comment i'll just say it takes all types of people to make the world spin. I bet Jim Baker still has some of that silver stuff he'll sell you. Anyone who takes a drug like that and then has deformed children, cancer, stroke etc... Should have signed an iron clad waiver holding the mfg, Dr and hospital blameless. Plus their health care provider should not be asked to pay for the treatment or dealing with any side effects to that treatment. Reckless stuff by and large.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Even though it's not been shown scientifically effective (so far) you think producers will ramp production? Randomized and peer reviewed trials take time. Yes, doctors prescribe things off label all the time. If someone is almost surely going to die, the drug is plentiful, and unlikely to cause worse harm (pain, faster death) then why not? There is already a method for that known as compassionate use. It's been opened up quite a bit over the last few decades.

Inventing and then producing drugs is a complicated process and most drugs fail to be effective or are too toxic for human use.

Sigh..... As for the patent drug comment i'll just say it takes all types of people to make the world spin. I bet Jim Baker still has some of that silver stuff he'll sell you. Anyone who takes a drug like that and then has deformed children, cancer, stroke etc... Should have signed an iron clad waiver holding the mfg, Dr and hospital blameless. Plus their health care provider should not be asked to pay for the treatment or dealing with any side effects to that treatment. Reckless stuff by and large.

I don't think you have to wait till "compassionate use" kicks in. And in fact lots of physicians aren't and are reporting remarkably positive results.

I actually don't expect anyone to ramp up production of it. Call it a hypothetical. That's why I used "would cheer." If I expected it to happen, I would have written "will cheer." Basic English language.

As for your Jim Bakker comment, LOL. (Had to look that one up; I must confess I thought he had died.)